Is Digital actually better than Analog?

Cdwallace; i will respond to your points;

you write;"I agree completely. However, I must point out that personal preference for vinyl (subjective) should not be passed as knowledge of the topic at hand, is digital actually better than analog. To appropriately answer this question, I would assume it would require knowledge of both pro's and con's of both analog and digital (non-subjective). Again like I said before, everyone has and is entitled to thier own personal preference. But how can one provide an unbiased answer unless preference is removed and factual pro's and con's are processed (facts). Intepretation of the result is then left to the question poser (subjective)."

to me the 'better' or 'best' are improper to use toward art.....'prefer', 'more satisfying', 'more life-like to my ears', 'more involving'......would all be ways i would describe how i view vinyl in relation to digital. i could care less about any subjective reasons. music is art. i eat organic fruit and vegtables because they taste much better. my wife tells me they are better for me for some objective reasons. i don't care about that.

the reasons i had sworn off getting involved in this subject again is that the whole need to find objective justifications why i like something gets in the way of the enjoyment and confuses what is important. why simply does not matter....TO ME.

i say....JUST LISTEN.

you wrote; "Would this constitute suffient explaination of why CD sales alone almost unreachably exceed vinyl sales, when factoring sales of CD's and vinyl outside of the perameters of "high end" or audiophile reproductions?"

digital is a market driven product...and every new digital advance is market driven. the obvious ease of production and use of digital media and the economic force it causes are responsible for who buys what. performance audio issues drive vinyl.....and the maket for performance 2-channel audio is small (but feisty).

you wrote;"This speaks volumes to me, care to be a little more specific, based on your experiences?"

the whole culture of vinyl (buying, the 'art' aspect of album covers', cleaning, diferent pressings, tt set-up, taking the vinyl out of the sleeve, putting it on the tt, cueing the arm, dropping the needle, un-muting the preamp, then waiting for the music)....is all like foreplay. there is a small element of that with digital but it is truely different. anticipation is part of it. then the much more involving musical experience; which many times is soooo immersive as to 'demand' attention'. the relaexed nature of vinyl causes your body to be at ease. it is difficult to not pay attention. my body knows when i have listened to vinyl. it is physical. one of life's true pleasures.

OTOH digital gets a much lower portion of my attention; i need to concentrate to be immersed into digital and the level of calmness and serenity is greatly reduced. it is there....digital is not to be dismissed...but it is limited sensually.

with vinyl you are concentrating on the event.....digital is a little more about the sound.

you wrote; "Much appreciated but still subjective to some degree. Being experienced in both areas, can you help me understand how you came to this mindset, based on factual information and results?"

if i were making an objective checklist of what the best vinyl does better than the best digital (and now we can use the word 'better').....

--much more bandwidth...lots more information....dramatically so.

--much more dynamic.....particularly micro-dynamic.

--much lower noise floor. there are many Lps where you can easily hear music that digital only vaguely hints at. noise on digital....musical content on vinyl.

--continuous. no gaps.

i realize that my above interpretations of my perceptions fly in the face of some widely accepted opinions on digital. on previous threads regarding this subject i have attempted to discuss these issues. at a certain point i decided that it was not productive to do so....and i simply did not make the points again. i could care less what some measurements say. anyone that has heard the comparison in my room would easily ageee with my points.

it is clear to anyone that listens...at the SOTA.

Does any digital step in the recording process ruin music forever? What about digitally recorded music that has been mastered to Analog (Vinyl) - is this better than straight CD?

(I guess my question is directed to those that claim Analog is always better than digital. Conversion to Vinyl should, in theory, raise the noise floor and add back some of the distortion that is missing from a digital CD, due to the inaccuracies in the mechanical cutting, presssing and cartridge needle pick up process. Apart from hiss and clicks - most of this added distortion is probably harmonic in nature, and after all, that is what a tube amp does and this effect sounds very good to many people)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"......wellll, I jus' don't know" -- Lou Reed
.

Cdwallace, you will not find any objectivist charts to show you the difference between digital and analog. If that is what you are looking for, it doesn't exist. If you would rather not be bothered with analog, that is fine also.

I concur with Mike, music is art, and cannot help but be judged subjectively. There are no charts to explain why someone prefers a Van Gogh over a Picasso. No charts to show why someone prefers chocolate over vanilla. No graphs will show why one prefers a convertible over a hard top automobile. If someone claims that driving with the wind blowing through ones hair is the best way to drive, should he have to provide scientific evidence?

Loosen your collar, live a little. If you do not have the funds for both, choose the format that suits your lifestayle best. Then just relax and enjoy it.

My system is not nearly as SOTA as Mike's, but I do have a fairly balanced budget between analog and digital. My digital rig is about 2/3 the cost of my analog rig. I also listen to digital 75% of the time. However, I, and everyone who has heard my system, even non-audiophiles, believe the analog sounds better, more-involving, than digital. I have no charts, but I and others talk less and listen more when analog is playing versus digital. I have no color charts to prove this, or explain why, it just is.

So why do I listen to what I claim is inferior sonically 75% of the time.....good question, Iask myself that often.
The answer is two fold, first, digital has analog beat handily in the convienience factor. I'm either busier (multi-tasking) or just lazy sometimes (70 min play times vs. 20 min), or sometimes it's software that I don't have on vinyl. Secondly, my digital system does sound very good, it's not exactly a Best Buy special. One only notices the shortcomings when comparing directly to analog. I'm only dissapointed in my digital system if I try to switch to digital immediately after listening to vinyl. If I'm just in the house, and reading or working, and fire up the rig with digital, it sounds great.

Maybe you are best just to go with digital. Many do, for the sake of convienience and/or $$$. If you don't have the analog to A/B for yourself in your own system, you will probably never know any better and save yourself some dough.

Cheers,
John

Why would anyone even consider the switch, nevertheless post the question, if analog is so superior to digital?”

Ignorance …

'Does any digital step in the recording process ruin music forever?'

Yes

'What about digitally recorded music that has been mastered to Analog (Vinyl) - is this better than straight CD?'

No, they are worse than CD. You actually get the worst of both worlds.

'due to the inaccuracies in the mechanical cutting, presssing and cartridge needle pick up process.'

With a reasonable setup the 'inaccuracies' (to coin your phrase) is smaller than redbook anologue to digital and subsequent digital to analogue conversion.

Pauly,

What a shame for those of you who dislike any form of digital, as the audio/video industry seems so hell bent on digital. DVD, Satellite and HD TV are obvious winners againt VHS and old analog signal modulation transmission like AM/FM etc. Online music and video on demand looks likely to kill these older formats forever....even CD, after surviving DVD-A and SACD will probably be displaced by some kind of MP format as the media of choice for audio. Analog will be like cars with carburators....vintage collector's items and increasingly difficult to find.

Hey I have a carburated car! I enjoy it very much - there is nothing quite like the sound of air rushing down the venturi pipes when you accelerate. Fuel injection sounds so mechanical and precise, regimented and digital.

Carburetors however sound so melodic and rich with the feel of real power and presence. I particularly like the bass which FI totally lacks - it is kind of bright and edgy in comparison. Actually, I should say kind of grainy and shut-in. Constricted even. Carburetors are all about the constant flow of air - none of this digital crap - so they don't have these drawbacks.

But then FI is so much more efficient and easy to use. Just plop in and go. Even on cranky days it just fires up as easily as ever. Carburators on the other hand, are tough to deal with. Gotta adjust this and adjust that and make sure everything is right and that you give it some time to start up and get to cruising speed before getting in the groove. It is a slow process that doesn't always work the first time, so the convenience suffers.

But oh the sound. And the nostalgia! Those are worth something, aren't they? However you will note that today, basically all cars are fuel injected. Such a shame that carubreted cars are becoming vintage collector's items and are increasingly more difficult to find today. Even I have succombed to having a fuel injected car as my daily driver. Time just seems to move that way.

Arthur

Shardorne.

I don’t dislike digital, I just happen to prefer analogue audio to digital audio.

I find your analogy of the carburetor and prediction of impending shortage of vinyl somewhat misplaced and unsubstatiated Vinyl has never been as available as it is now, and the turntables/arms/cartridges/phono amps available today are better than anything before.

I suspect you are probably scratching your head as to why vacuum tube aren’t extinct yet.

Regards
Paul

Pauly,

I find your analogy of the carburetor and prediction of impending shortage of vinyl somewhat misplaced and unsubstatiated Vinyl has never been as available as it is now

You are right I did not subtsantiate my remarks...but I suspect the wide availabilty of Vinyl is mainly because average people are clearing out the attic and getting rid of their old Vinyl collections, garage sales etc. The average person has no more use for Vinyl then an old car with a carburetor that won't start on a cold day.

I admit that the average person may not be as informed as audiophiles about the poor quality of their choices...but nevertheless progress (if you can call it that) is relentless.

Arthur,

there is nothing quite like the sound of air rushing down the venturi pipes when you accelerate. Fuel injection sounds so mechanical and precise, regimented and digital.

LOL. Nostalgia... the gasoline smell of a flooded engine on a cold day....the old floor the accelerator trick to get the 'ol baby to fire up (especially when flooded)....not to mention cleaning spark plugs and warming them up on the kitchen stove (that always worked for me).....and, of course, the manual choke control ....the richness of it all! Cars had indvidual character and temperament back in those days, and they responded to your care!

In comparison digital audio certainly lacks character. Boringly consistent perhaps. Where is the fun?

Wait a minute. I have a car with 3 carburetors; starts every day thank you. I will also get there before you do.
:-)

Oh my, how could I have miss this most erudite of brawls?

To further add to this erudite exchnage {:)}:

but nevertheless progress (if you can call it that) is relentless.

More like change, isn't it, in this particular case.
Or, if we wish to use the word as a verb, we may say: "as time progresses" certain processes become simpler OR more convenient (or both) with the advent and development of digital media formats". For example, recording and mastering...

Arthur, you forgot to mention that the good old Weber twins were given the final touch by listening. In those times of yore, the tweakers were musical, not mere mechanics and if you had three, or even six in a row that took quite a time. But oh, what wonderful sound.....
(no, Marsha, Weber didn't make tts)

Detlof is back from sabbathical leave!

Detlof - Yes indeed, that is how I tweak my pair of 32/36 DGAV Webers in my BWM Bavaria 3.0. I have even done that for 6 sets of 45 DCOE Webers on a Lamborghini LP400S, among others. It is the easiest and best way I have found to do it.

Arthur

Having read and enjoyed this thread so far I feel that it must be said that only well recorded discs either vinyl or polycarbonate sound good and all badly recorded discs sound bad.The people in the recording studio have a far greater effect on how a recording sounds than the method of play back.Copys transferred from the other format rarely are improvements,although I have a few lp,s transferred from digital master tapes that are stunning.I have over 2000 lp albums and mostly listen to less than 100 on a regular basis.I have maybe 300 cd,s and only 10-15 are as good as my better lp,s.Before owning my georgemark dac I only used the cd player to warm up the system before listening now there is a choice.George Bischoff sent me a home cut demo disc with the dac that is fantastic and the equal of any record I own but I am having great difficulty finding cd,s in my musical taste even close in performance,lets not shoot each others formats down, we as a consumer group need to put pressure on the recording studios to clean up their acts.We will never have live music from machines but the closest to live is always recorded faithfully at source.

Brian - I agree with you. After my short-lived foray with analog, I have decided that I am better off simply finding good recordings to get an improvement in sound quality. I have come to the conclusion that many recording engineers don't have good hearing - and they just don't care. Getting something out fast is the main goal in our capitalistic world and I would say they are pressured to do just that (for the most part). Quantity is worth more than quality. Just look at iPods. I would much prefer hearing excellent quality music in the evening than mediocre quality music all day. But I suppose I am part of the minority. The art of making an excellent recording seems to be dying. But the mainstream doesn't care - heck, they don't even notice with their poor quality playback systems.

Arthur

The art of making an excellent recording seems to be dying. But the mainstream doesn't care - heck, they don't even notice with their poor quality playback systems.

If you check pro audio forums you will see that recording/mastering engineers are often complaining about the demands of clients/producers to produce "loud" (=compressed) CD's.

The recording art and technology is not dying (although with all the available tricks in pro tools today there is a growing tendency to over-engineer things). The problem is that artists and producers are demanding loud in your face recordings, stuff that grabs attention but is easily tiresome to the ears! To me that is the problem.

Bob Katz has a web page that explains all the issues.

“recording/mastering engineers are often complaining about the demands of clients/producers to produce "loud" (=compressed) CD's”

Compressed music is my pet peeve. I simply cannot listen to any music if it has been compressed. Sadly, most of the rock and roll/pop genre is compressed. Damn shame I think.

Shadorne - I say quality recording is dying because that is what the "powers that be" want. And ultimately the consumer doesn't care - and so it goes. We are both saying the same thing.

Shadorne - I say quality recording is dying because that is what the "powers that be" want. And ultimately the consumer doesn't care - and so it goes. We are both saying the same thing.

Agreed. We definitely agree.

The problem is not the dying of the "art"; skilled people who know what they are doing. Indeed, as you say, the "powers that be" demand what they "think" sells.

Do consumers even realize that this loudness escalation has been going on in the music industry since the 50's..."powers that be" deciding that loud and compressed sells better?

....let's not shoot the messenger (the recording/mastering engineers who are just doing their job and giving clients what they want)

...perhaps the decline in CD sales is parly a reflection of poor quality "hot" music.....after all why bother buying a CD if it so heavily compressed/awful sounding and only suitable for an iPod, Car or PC system....might as well download a lossy mp3 as it is cheaper, more convenient and the quality is often just as good compared to an awful compressed CD.

"Compressed music is my pet peeve."

The number of recordings that use no compression is incredibly small, like .001%. Compression is a signal to noise reality that must be addressed and not ignored. Compression is a good thing if you like vinyl.

Compression is a pop music/commercial issue. Most of the music I buy is essentially unnaffected by the "radio track" mentality. Peter Gabriel "So" is a perfect example of "Radio Edit" versus "Album edit"....Big Time and Sledgehammer mixed for Radio, the rest of the album is simply excellent and natural.

Video Killed the Radio Star, technology cannot replace talent as many of today's "pop" producers are asked to do. Now singers have to look good first, before they even get a chance to sing.

The reverse from the 40's and 50's where there was more talent than technology and no MTV metality that lumped your looks in as "talent".

Could it be possible that not only quality recording is dying, as suggested above, but also quality music is dying?
Just wondering....

Quality music is alive. It's just underexposed, on small labels, and difficult to find amid the clutter.

HELL NO, DIGITAL SUCKS

Zeal - No direspect intended. Please, kind sir. If your not gonna make a contribution to the thread, please refrain from making such statements.

Besides Zeal - If I were to say "Zeal..he's a joke" or "Digital sucks because you're too clueless to understand it" or "You show exactly why you made the comment you did everytime you speak" then I'm in the wrong because I have not contributed to the discussion topic.

Thank for understanding Zeal.

Let me point this out, in case you haven't noticed, but your entire post did not answer the originally posted question.

"to me the 'better' or 'best' are improper to use toward art.....'prefer', 'more satisfying', 'more life-like to my ears', 'more involving'."

"i could care less about any subjective reasons"

This is where things take a turn for the grey area, because that mindset, anything goes. This is why audio is in the state of disarray its in today.

"Music is art"

Mike, music is art, very true! Music reproduction is not!! If I were fortunate enough to purchase the Mona Lisa, get this painting home, hang it on my wall and decide I don't think her smile is big enough...do I pull out the water color kit and make the smile bigger? Of course not! I'm not Picasso. He is the artist, not me. So why then would I classify the manipulation of the Mona Lisa as art? Now lets apply this to audio. If the intended recording artist purposely put in a little extra highs or edge in the recording, or kept everything smooth and melo, then why would I want to manipulate the intended recording to suite my taste. The extra highs are removed, manipulating the intended purpose of the highs, or the smoothness is imphasized, this manipulating the recording to be overly melo. Now...lets apply this to the topic at hand. Analog more times than not will manipulate the recording to fall or work within its perameters, or those set by the consumer not the artist. This is true because you can swop out parts to better suite your taste.

"my wife tells me they are better for me for some objective reasons."

Your wife is a wise woman. It wouldn't hurt to figure out those objective reasons either.

"the reasons i had sworn off getting involved in this subject again is that the whole need to find objective justifications why i like something gets in the way of the enjoyment and confuses what is important. why simply does not matter....TO ME."

Mike... the thread question was not posed directly to you, nor was it intended to be answered based on your feelings at the moment. Its not about you, its about whether digital is actually better than analog. In order to validate statements, be it for or against, you need some sort of reasoning behind your resolution. This is where subjectivity is dismissed.

"digital is a market driven product...and every new digital advance is market driven. the obvious ease of production and use of digital media and the economic force it causes are responsible for who buys what. performance audio issues drive vinyl.....and the maket for performance 2-channel audio is small (but feisty)."

Mike, I'm sorry but I will have to disagree again. Consumers don't buy CDs or vinyl for that matter because of market, ease of production or economics. They buy CD's because they want to or enjoy the artist they purchased. That being said, they want to hear what the artist has to offer on the CD, as the artist intended. Digital preserves that intent, without manipulation.

"made the brilliant observation that the sonic qualities of tube amps out-pace SS amps at a given price, until you get up into the megabuck range"

This statement is again subjective. When tube amps are tested and compared to the test results of solid state, do the tube results reveal they outpase SS amps? After all, IMO one of the few non-subjective standards to audio is testing. I can say you're wrong, and the next say we're both right. What standard can be applyed to both theories to validate some sort of factual result?

"It simply takes a lot of money before SS catches up to tubes. My guess why (and it's only a guess) is that folks have been working with tubes longer"

Which raises another question...why do all recordings have the same tonal reproductive charactoristics, even when switching tube amps? This can be proved by the battery of testing manufactors do to thier product prior to release to the public. In order to validate a manufactors claim of superiourity, they have to prove the claims via testing. Correct? This is where the subjectivity is ultimately reduced to a minimum.

"And I think the situation between analog and digital playback is similar. If you spend megabucks on digital, (Wadia, EMM, CDS, Esoteric, Aural Symphonics optics, etc) the analog/digital debate becomes moot again (assuming decent LP/CD software for each.) HOWEVER, if you spend less than megabucks for BOTH your analog and your digital gear, the analog is going to sound better than the digital for the same reason that modestly priced tube gear sounds better than modestly priced SS gear: Analog has been developed and refined for over 85 years vs. digital for barely 30. So of course a MODEST analog rig will smoke a MODESET digital rig. What the hell would you expect!"

This entire statement is again subjective. I've heard a tube based system, Dali Helicon 700, Cayin tube amp and preamp, play a CD from the Bob James Trio, and only 1 of the 12 or 13 tracks remotely close to the intended composer and producers recording. Even a Jolida tube CD player, amp and preamp setup with MBL 101 Hybirds have a very difficult time with this. And the list doesn't stop there.

Care to tackle this explaination?

Bad equipment? Each time it was explained that this is how it was supposed to sound! Come again??! Sad part about it is every other recording sounded just about the same. These are recordings I have listened to countless times, via a number of studio grade headphones and SS systems, and the quality of the reproduction sounded similar but different ie better accuracy, larger soundstage, deaper soundstage, more detail and such, depending on the quality of the setup. I'm sorry but megabucks is an excuse why analog development hasn't progressed any further than what it has. 80+ years is a long time, but nothing has changed in the last 40, and I'm being generous.

"What the hell would you expect!"

I expect the best from both a technological and perfomance stand. This requires fact and proven theories which in turn leaves no room for subjectivity. Analog, truth be told, has yet to accomplish this.

"And though I own great examples of both technologies, and enjoy them equally, I know in my heart that analog has pretty much reached the peak of its development, while digital has only begun to be explored"

One of the few non-subjective statement I have heard so far. This is why I love digital more than analog, because digital can only get better from here. Analog, in all its glory, can not advance but so much further...it at all! Even you said this yourself! And your did you reach this conclusion...factual assessment of both technologies and thier progress until this point in time. Fact!

"just to offer a single "for instance": what will happen to digital audio reproduction when 3-D optical storage becomes available? Think about it."

Digital will advance even further...the very structural foundation of 3-D optimal will no doubt be digital. In fact 3 dimensional was in development since the 60's and 70's and is advancing even as we speak. Its called surround sound. But thats another conveluted discussion in itself!

Sorry, didn't mean to get carried away. I find analog to be more organic and rich. Digital gets rather analytical. Sure it has more detail but less warmth. I was born in the 50's , so I have been listening to analog longer then digital. And i still listen to analog more. Didn't buy a CD player untill the mid 90's. Always had a turn table.

I am somewhat perturbed as to why folks such Edwards and Wallace continue posting on the analogue forum.

Obviously they really like their own opinions (that is quite evident) and I don’t think there is anything wrong with liking your own opinion. But surely they cannot be so naive to think that others on this forum place quite the same value on their opinions as they do?

Cdwallace, what exactly is the point of your ramblings? I see the 'Cd' in your moniker, so it seems you are a digital fan. Are you simply trying to convince yourself that you made the correct choices?
If it's that simple, you win. Digital is your preference, enjoy it.

I, and thousands others, prefer the sound of vinyl. It's no contest on many occasions. You're welcome to enjoy your digital, but OTOH, you cannot prove that digital sounds better either. So what is the point of this futile excercise?

Cheers,
John

So what is the point of this futile excercise?

Cheers,
John
Jmcgrogan2 (Threads | Answers)

Attention, and a forum in which to be heard where another may not exist.

Here, Here, Pauly. You summed up how I have been feeling for months! Good Job!!!!!

Justin

11-08-06: Pauly
I am somewhat perturbed as to why folks such Edwards and Wallace continue posting on the analogue forum.

Interesting. I personally pay zero attention to which forum I'm reading. I wouldn't have known this was an Analog Forum topic had you not mentioned it.

Organic? Does that mean that analog recordings are supposed to be bio-degradable?

3D optical storage = surround sound? Not really. . . it only means that by storing data in 3 dimensions we may in principle achieve higher data density. . . how the higher data density is used remains undefined by the storage medium.

Monna Lisa painted by Picasso? What a fanciful notion. . . last I checked the author was one Leonardo Da Vinci, who lived in Italy some several centuries before Pablo Picasso was even born in Spain.

In general, the proposition that "digital is better than analog" or viceversa remains undecidable.

Such an emotive subject. An old versus a new approach.

I catch myself sometimes saying to the kids, "Well, in my day, things were much better..." but things do move on, and the kids just roll their eyes...

VHS versus DVD.
Carburetors versus electronic controlled fuel injection.
Film versus digital camera
Letter versus an email
Mechanical spring wristwatch versus LCD
A fax versus an electronic file.
Natural fabrics versus man made
Horse versus motor car
Balloon versus aeroplane
Organic food versus industrial production
Pen and ink versus ballpoint pen
Newspaper versus internet news
Coal versus Oil
FM Radio versus MTV
Slide rule versus Calculator
Stone versus concrete
Candle versus lightbulb
Carbon fibre composites versus wood sports gear
Leather Ski boots versus plastic

Such an emotive subject. An old versus a new approach.

I catch myself sometimes saying to the kids, "Well, in my day, things were much better..." but things do move on, and the kids just roll their eyes...

VHS versus DVD.
Carburetors versus electronic controlled fuel injection.
Film versus digital camera
Letter versus an email
Mechanical spring wristwatch versus LCD
A fax versus an electronic file.
Natural fabrics versus man made
Horse versus motor car
Balloon versus aeroplane
Organic food versus industrial production
Pen and ink versus ballpoint pen
Newspaper versus internet news
Coal versus Oil
FM Radio versus MTV
Slide rule versus Calculator
Stone versus concrete
Candle versus lightbulb
Carbon fibre composites versus wood sports gear
Leather Ski boots versus plastic
Shadorne (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

Apples versus Oranges???

In general, the proposition that "digital is better than analog" or viceversa remains undecidable.

Exactly, both are great but unfortunately one still has a future ahead of it whilst the other has its best days behind it. No doubt the analog part of digital, as we know it, will be replaced eventually too....something that sends impulses directly to nerves in the brain perhaps...no more speakers...who knows?

Very little point in arguing about it, as there is little chance that we go backward 30 years, anyway.

Just for the record pauly and gang,

You guys started in on me about digital and surround , and as you have admitted this area of audio is not your forte is not your forte.

re-read the thread, my comments were not even remotely anti-analog nor directed at your record playng types.

You guys made that I was talking about digital being better than analog all by yourself. :).

VHS versus DVD.
Carburetors versus electronic controlled fuel injection.
Film versus digital camera
Letter versus an email
Mechanical spring wristwatch versus LCD
(not worth repeating more of this BS)

I thought you were a cut above messrs. Edwards and Wallace ... well, not the first time I was wrong. Yep, a letter being inferior to a email is definitive proof analogue is inferior to digital. I mean, it is not that I am the type imbecile and actualy listen to both mediums and decide which I prefer. Rather I look at letters ...

BTW, never seen a LCD Rolex ... and you sound somewhat uninformed if you think digital camera are superior to film cameras. Go speak to a professional photographer (you’re obviously quite ignorant). And while you’r eat it, go speak to a professional musician and ask him whether they prefer vacuum tube or transistor guitar amps ...

Oh yeah, for security purposes letters are superior to email. Email is not secure and may legally be read by any third party ... letters are protected by law. Just go ask Foley how risky email is.

“Nor directed at your record play[i]ng types.”

Clearly you carry some resentment to folks who listen to vinyl LP’s. I can only surmise your resentment extends to everybody that do not embrace your obviously-flawed theories on sound reproduction, which incidently, is probably the majority of posters on this board.

Which begs the question, why frequent an analogue forum? I cannot for a second think you actually believe we take your theories seriously. Nobody can be that naive ...

Pauly , Pauly pauly pauly,

"go speak to a professional musician and ask him whether they prefer vacuum tube or transistor guitar amps ..."

Guitar players CREATE sound with tubes amplifiers not REPRODUCE sound, fitness to purpose....everything is a nail to you isn't it?

"think digital camera are superior to film cameras."

for about 99% of us there is no substitute, and once again you're looking for style points and like many old photographers they cannot make the switch to the new technology, and some of the things you perceive as limitations of the camera are actually weaknesses in other areas of the developing process. If you would learn to research stuff Paully everything wouldn't be a mystery.

BTW, never seen a LCD Rolex "

Thus they've never been the most accurate watches for keeping time. Style points are not part of the equation but as my slightly upgraded turbo charged Subaru out handles and out runs the best best carberated car refferred to above, one has to wonder when i'm smooching the trophy girl who really has the better car?

If you want style points and esoteric glory Analog is waaaay better than digital in that area. If you're interested in the music and rproducing it with a high degree of accuracy, the line is not so clear.

Caio.

DaVinci or Picasso? Frost or Hemmingway? Pamela Anderson or Ashley Judd, Analog or Digital? Tubes vs Solid State? The questions are very similar. After being in this hobby for over a decade, I have learned mostly that musical presentation is different for everyone. I appreciate that some people on this forum are very well educated and give the formulas for great music but I have come to the conclusion that if I can sit through a whole song and my foot is going with the beat, it is a good system. I dont care if it's a B&K $500 set up or a Wilson Alexander $100,000 set-up.

Pauly,

I never said that all new approaches are better than the old. In fact, I never said which approach was better. I certainly never said film is worse than digital camera.

Actually, I was just trying to say that a new approach versus an old approach brings change, which often becomes a highly emotive subject. Judging by your comment,

(you’re obviously quite ignorant).

I was right on...

It is a crime tring to compare digital and analogue!

Go and look up the word "ANALOGUE". You'll get the anwser instantly. Digital is a mere mathematical formula that resembles the original recording.
If a turntable is set up propperly and you have decent records it is the most satisfying experience of ones audio-life! I once also was very sceptical and stubborn.

There is nothing wrong with tubes - it is the output-transformer that is the trouble. But there is tube-amps out there that is absolutely 'perfect' in every way.

Never regard "old" technology to be obsolete!

Kind regards,
Dewald Visser

And never regard new technology as "inferior."

Often we DO trade convenience/practicality/profit (newer technologies) for certain "qualities" available only with older methods. This is true in all areas of human endeavor.

I believe it's up to individuals to inform themselves on the merits and then make a personal value-judgement as to how much (extra?) time and money they're willing to allot to a particular pursuit. And no one else should question their decision.

We see examples everywhere of persons who are absolutely obsessive about obtaining the utmost in quality in a particular field, while exhibiting total lack of taste, interest, knowledge, or care in many other areas of their lives -- even if they could afford something "better."

If a person's answer to the question "Is it worth it to you?" is "No" then leave 'em be -- they're doing other things that you're not interested in ;--)
.

Nsgarch, FWIW we are in total agreement. Beyond a certain level of reproduction I for one, and I'm confident there are many others, just don't want to be obsessing about audio minutia...I want to be really listening to and hearing the music. Its fun to fiddle with audio, but its not so fun when it gets in the way of music appreciation.